He didn't put Trump in prison, so it must have been some sort of conspiracy. That's the logic or illogic in use by some.

Meanwhile, we got a nasty majority in the SCOTUS, which threw a huge monkey wrench into the works. Trump did that, not Garland.

It's incredibly difficult to prosecute a POTUS, as we've all seen. We never had to do that before, and there wasn't a clear path to it. So, it didn't happen in time to prevent him from running again. And then, he won that office again...in part due to some of us shifting our blame from one place to another and losing sight of the real target.

So, now, we're facing some rocky roads ahead. Very rocky. And, if things go as they usually do, we'll keep making the mistake of blaming the wrong people for that, too.

We run the risk of never getting control of government again. The primary blame is on Trump and his enablers. But, there's plenty of blame to go around. A mirror would also be useful in spotting potential blamees, I think.

If I recall correctly, a televised, armed coup was attempted in front of the entire world to watch, and garland's doj didn't immediately clamp down on every single person involved.

There really isn't any more to it.

None of it is magical. Every perpetrator has the right to a trial and must be indicted by a grand jury. That's the law.

You want shortcuts because, well, you think that's a good thing. Think again, please. Harder and longer this time.

Everyone left after the insurrection. They had to be identified and charged before they could be arrested, since they were not caught in the act.

And they were. Most were identified from videos and photos by people who actually knew them. There was an easy way to report something like that, and such reports were followed up.

You try to make it all sound very simple, but it never was simple at all.

And then there were the main perpetrators. Before they could be charged, evidence had to be collected and plans made for charging and prosecution. That takes longer. And, in the case of a POTUS, much longer.

You're not an expert on such things. Neither am I. However I know how complicated they can be and how much time is needed to do the job. And, it was done. Not to your satisfaction, of course. Frankly, I doubt you could ever be satisfied - assuming you are actually speaking your mind and not doing some sort of obfuscation.

at that time. Not in those numbers. The insurrectionists simply walked away. Maybe you don't remember the situation very well. I do.

There were not enough law enforcement people on the scene to arrest all of those people. They had to be identified and tracked down later. And that was done - quite well, in fact.

Many of the things you are saying are simply not accurate. Now, I don't know why that is, but they aren't. Once it was clear that forces were showing up to put an end to the insurrection, people simply left the area right away. I watched that happen. They were there, and suddenly they weren't. Donald J. Trump was largely responsible for there being too few law enforcement people on scene. That was deliberate. However, proving that is not as simple as saying it.

So, if you're going to say things that aren't so, I'm going to point those things out. Yes, I am.

Hours went by with the world watching it happen on tv, and nothing was done to stop them. For hours.

I'm sorry, but I can't join you in shrugging our shoulders and pretending the best possible courses of action were taken.

He was responsible for it.

...but you're obviously not alone.

The U.S. Constitution does not specify a specific timeframe within which a suspected individual must be charged or arrested. However, the Sixth Amendment does guarantee the right to a speedy trial once a person is formally charged with a crime. This right ensures that undue delays in the legal process do not infringe upon the rights of the accused.

So, while the Constitution does not provide a specific timeline for charging and arresting suspects, various laws and legal procedures at the state and federal levels dictate the appropriate timeframes for these actions. These timelines can vary depending on the jurisdiction and the nature of the crime involved.

Now... the U.S. Constitution (specifically in the Fifth Amendment) provides guidance regarding the convening of a grand jury. The relevant section states:

...we arrest suspects equally under the law.

Weird.

There's nothing "weird" about it at all (to use your word). It directly pertains to the aforementioned post #17, which was made earlier today. Given its recency, I presume it is still fresh in your memory. However, to provide clarity, I will include a link to the post and quote its content to aid in refreshing your recollection and to provide the needed context. I hope this additional information proves helpful.

....you seem to be going out on a limb here.

garland's legacy is trashed by his own inaction, don't let it bother you so much.

We gotta stick together and avoid trashing Democrats and their allies.

He's an intitutionalist, and that's fine in normal times, but these aren't normal times. He failed to recognize that. There was nothing malignant about it. I'm sure he feels he did his duty. But he did not recognize that his duty to protect the Republic outweighs his duty to preserve Norms. Now we will have a rapist/felon/traitor in the White House. That is a failure of leadership.

I also fault Biden to an extent. I do not beleive he should have allowed the DoJ to just grind along. He too was too much an institutionalist on this matter, IMO. He wanted to avoid appearing to apply inappropriate political pressure. But they still accused him of that, so what good did it do?

...that they couldn't both be rightwingers at the same time?

Garland is Jewish and his family name was Garfinkel.

She has been wrong about Garland's strategy from the beginning. She would gain more respect if she just said, I was wrong.

The J6 committee stated that Garland waited too long. I am taking their word over Marci's.

Pride or something else I imagine.

That's not going to change. I didn't read past the first paragraph because I realized the article was written by one of Garlands fans who has been saying the same thing since people started complaining about his inaction.

No need to read anything you don’t want to. Nor is there any need to comment on articles you haven’t read.

her BS. Her writing is like a one trick pony with all the the conspiracy theories and only she knows how everything works.

and even now, he is pretending that there is some chance for this case to move forward. Those reports should have been written in July and released in July. Had that been done, we might not be where we are now.

all the Republican members who were involved in the insurrection directly or indirectly. What about those who met at the hotel to plan the coup ? So many got away with so much.

You think that plotting an insurrection at a hotel is "speech or debate in either house"?

Giddoudaheah.

President Trump's staggering record of uncharged crimes

Updated May 16, 2023
As of April 2023, Donald Trump has been credibly accused of committing at least 56 criminal offenses since he launched his campaign for president in 2015. That total only reflects allegations relating to his time in or running for office and omits, for instance, Trump’s criminal exposure for fraudulent business dealings.

https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/president-trumps-staggering-record-of-uncharged-crimes/#table

1. If DOJ had begun its investigations in a timely manner (see the Jack Smith report) there would not have been a need for the J6 select committee.

2. The greatest investigative agency in the world went crawling on hands and knees to the J6 committee begging it to turn over to them the evidence it had uncovered.

3. With its limited resources the J6 committee was miles ahead of DOJ in investigating Trump and his insurrection.

4. Jack Smith said it, Trump would have been convicted of serious crimes had he been prosecuted in a timely manner

I'm asking this not in defense of Garland, but because I am wondering whether the eventual result - the Supreme Court's immunity decision - wouldn't have just come sooner as well, and would still have prevented a trial before the election? Say the Trump indictments had come out a year earlier, starting in August of 2022 instead of August of 2023. Presumably Trump would have moved to dismiss the indictment in December of 2022, and the case would have made its way to SCOTUS on about the same timeline, but a year sooner, at the end of the 2023 term. At this point the case would have gone back to the district court for Judge Chutkan to decide which counts of the indictment should be dismissed according to SCOTUS' decision. Smith (if he had been handling the case, or another team if no special prosecutor had been appointed) would likely have filed a superseding indictment, just as he did in 2024. And that new indictment would have been challenged as well, and appealed for as long as possible - maybe all the way back to SCOTUS, and maybe long enough to prevent a trial from occurring before November of 2024. Smith didn't get much farther than the superseding indictment, dated July 27, 2024, which gave him only about 4 months to get the case prepared and tried - an impossible task. If he could have started over a year sooner, would there have been a trial, or would he still be stuck in the appellate process by November of 2024?

Maybe if Garland had started the process a year earlier (I'm not sure the investigation could have been completed much before then), Trump could have been tried and possibly, though not certainly, convicted before the election, although appeals would continue and it's doubtful he'd have ever gone to prison, regardless. We might never know why Garland didn't move more expeditiously. But given the glacial pace of the appellate process I'm not sure the eventual outcome would have been different. So I would agree that at least some of the blame can be laid at Roberts' feet. SCOTUS' decision might prove to be their most democracy-destroying act since Citizens United.

...Smith's observation that the only thing keeping trump out of prison was the election, would never had been made.

and he got elected anyway. It's possible that the federal prosecution, had it been allowed to continue, would have had more impact on voters than the NY case. But even if Smith's case had gone to trial before the election and Trump had been convicted, he wouldn't have been in prison by 11/5/24; he'd be out on OR pending appeal, spreading lies and gaslighting MAGA, which would have voted for him anyhow. If he hadn't been elected he might have been given a short sentence at a minimum security prison once all the appeals were concluded several years later.

I don't think we know that at all.

Either way, now we have a felon for Pres.

She can't even take divergent opinions on her blog posts without Rayne deleting or threatening or pretending that posting a paragraph on her blog is somehow a DDS attack and threatens security. Total amateur hour bullshit.

No thanks. I've gained absolutely nothing from reading her endless rambles since 2016. It's over in 2025. Pass.

Garland isn't 100% responsible but he does have some culpability....

And I have no fucking idea at all what role "failed democratic consultants" supposedly played in this 🤨

Tell us, Marcy, tell us how Jack Smith has it all wrong.

Ten years ago I thought she was going to go full horseshoe like her former partners Greenwald and Scahill